05 July 2007

Got Voice?

When I began writing stuff as a teen, the muse would often gift me with the first (or occasionally, the last) sentence of a story or article. It may or may not have been about an idea I was contemplating, yet the words would appear magically, in perfect cadence. This alone could catapult me through the resulting sentences until I completed the work. Sometimes the stuff was good, sometimes not, but the first sentence was always right.

As my skills matured, I created more ambitious writing projects for myself, fiddling around with endings and middles and bullet points and characters, yet still found these separate components drifting in the ozone until the arrival of that glorious first sentence, at which point they would coalesce into a dramatic whole.

As a teen I instinctively realized that this opening enchantment set the piece’s tone and expectations, yet it was only recently that I understood it was actually (the literary term) Voice I was experiencing.

What Do You Hear?

We are each given a unique, God-given perspective to apply to life. The best authors (and musicians and artists) convey that perspective into their work by revealing their Voice. Voice is the ultimate creative intangible, the writer’s signature style simmering with hidden values, wit and wordplay, charm, steely logic, and authenticate emotions.

The Originals resonate and can’t be duplicated, though they are often copied. The Greats meld Voice with refined qualities (insight, talent, sharper use of the artistic tools), while the Immortals combine all this with inspired risk-taking to create singular works within their field. Voice is the essential element in all of this.

The easiest high school lit examples are Faulkner and Hemingway; though most people focus on their differing uses of language, their choice of words is evidence of their individual Voices as the language came after they had discovered their personal creative riverhead.
For Immortal (and even Great) Voices, other deficiencies are forgivable. Two quick examples:

  • Hemingway moaned that Dostoyevsky couldn’t write, yet the Russian’s novels unaccountably moved him. They are still considered the most acute psychological fiction in the Western canon.
  • Shakespeare’s language veils plot holes, character inconsistencies, and unrealistic parallels. (Would two prominent families actually be going through near-identical family crises as they do in King Lear?) Everyone still focuses on the overripe language.

If you’re trying to write, but after practice, study, and informed instruction find the words still lie limp on the page, it’s because you’re lacking Voice. Keep trying.

Apostolics: As in Writing, So in Music
One reason so many Apostolic artistic efforts are so often mediocre is the individual vision for each work is non-existent. There is no compelling Voice within the writer that believes in its artistic importance, just an urge to write something, “to minister,” as if that were enough.

I mean honestly, when’s the last time you read an Apostolic (non-doctrinal) anything and said, “That’s an important article” or “This book will live beyond my lifetime”? Do we ever open any Apostolic book or magazine, ninetyandnine.com included, and anticipate something powerful enough to rearrange our thinking or even the direction of the Apostolic movement? If not, aren’t we just applauding mediocrity?

It’s time we stopped settling for prairie romances and instead honed our Voices to reach some level of excellence. We must raise our creative ambitions to be godly influencers on our surrounding culture, not just Pentecostals. We must be willing to put in the hard work to make our Voice remarkable, for the more remarkable our Voice, the easier it will be to share God with everyone. Of course, the opposite is also true.

Always End with a Story

An established critic recently declared he never read more than 5 pages of any book until he was sure the writer’s Voice was distinctive enough to be remembered long after the book was finished. Otherwise, no matter how exciting the content, it wasn’t worth his time.

I think he’s right.

Because a written work takes so much more than a perfect first sentence, but it’s the perfect first sentence that frees the Voice to change the world.

9 Comments:

Blogger chantell said...

So on target. I drank this whole post in, but had to stop to laugh when I got to "prairie romances" :-)

July 5, 2007 8:57 AM  
Blogger Josh said...

When I read this post I couldn't help but think of the movie "Walk the Line" (being the movie buff that I am).
There is a scene in the movie where Johnny Cash is auditioning for the first time and he sings an old gospel tune. Sam Phillips tells him it's no good and goes on to explain: "If you was hit by a truck and lying in the gutter dying and there was time to sing one song, one song people will remember before you're dirt, one song that tells God what you thought about your time here on earth; are you telling me that's what you'd sing? ...or would you sing something different, something you felt. Cause, I'll tell you now, that's the kind of song people want to hear. That's the kind of song that saves people."
What kind of writing/music/movies will really save people? Will it be tired rehashing of the same old stuff? Or will it be something real, something we feel? That is true worship.

July 5, 2007 1:43 PM  
Blogger Alison said...

Bravo! I second everything you said. What makes a work of art fresh and original and capable of standing the test of time is the author's ability to see the world deeply, to capture a vital aspect of truth in the human experience. As someone who's written fiction, I can affirm that that is easier said than done. It's scary to be so honest in one's writing--yet it's the only way art can make a lasting impact on the reader.

July 5, 2007 3:00 PM  
Blogger Alison said...

I forgot to say that I think it is so interesting how the writing voices of the Biblical writers are so different from each other, so unique to their personal style, yet God used each writer to convey something that only they could best express. He wanted them to have their own passionate, unique voices! Can you imagine if Hosea had tried to sound like David instead of himself? We'd definitely be worse off for it.

July 5, 2007 3:03 PM  
Blogger courtney ballestero said...

You're killin' me Mister Curry! I mean, excellent (slam dunk/home run/Pullitzer prize) post,except you slammed all the prairie romance lovers! Oh well, I guess they had it comin'. This concept of "Voice" is one I struggle with. After we cough and hack and get the courage to reveal what that voice is we must face the consequences of what comes out. I struggle with this immensely for when some (okay, mine) emerges it is STRONG! It draws a line. It states an opinion. It's too ambitious. It's not just the hard work that you stated we are in need of. It's ambivalence. We can't be concerned with the critics. And it will always be the mediocre who have the most criticisms. Why oh why do you challenge us so Rev?

July 5, 2007 6:40 PM  
Blogger Marjorie said...

This was very insightful! I have a question for you: It seems to me that offering something in your voice simultaneously makes you totally vulnerable to your audience and totally impervious to the judgments that audience may offer. Does this seem true to you (or anyone else)? How can this be? Is one slightly greater than the other so as to be the victorious response (this does not seem true to me)? No matter what--being true to one's voice both in searching for the authentic one and then in using it, one does the greatest honor to the Creator.

July 5, 2007 8:19 PM  
Blogger kdc said...

After I write something like this I’m spent! Here, however, are my short answers:

Alison - great point on how so many books of the Bible, and especially the Gospels portray diff writing voices. Great proof of my thesis. (It never hurts to have the Bible on your side.:)

Marjorie – completely agree with your last sentence.

For me, when I’m totally vulnerable in sharing my voice I’m second guessing myself all the way to publication. Then I keep second guessing. So no, I never feel impervious until maybe months later when I might reread something I wrote and realize there’s very little I would change. Then I know I was trusting my Voice. (Then there's the problem of whether or not it's any good...)

But, as Courtney implied, it’s the hardest task I’ve ever set myself against.

July 5, 2007 10:32 PM  
Anonymous don ryan said...

Hurray for slamming the prairie romances but can I suggest something else. Are there not times when we crave a hot dog (not so much meat but lots of filler). I love reading great tomes and "meaningful works" but there are also times when my brain craves cotton candy. This is why, IMO, the genre of "chick lit" thrives. There is no great esoteric message in the story but it cleanses the palate of the mind so to speak and you leave with a nice feeling (and minimal aftertaste). Mediocrity sells. I don't know that it should be applauded or the end goal but there is a definite market (and at times, taste) for it.

July 7, 2007 8:18 AM  
Blogger kdc said...

Don,
The only things wrong with thrillers, et al are:

1. If it becomes your regular diet; instead of the occasional hot dog, your brain turns fat & lazy, often refusing the more nutritious choices available.

2. Often, thriller (et al) writers are settling instead of pushing themselves to achieve something truly great.

Thriller (et al) writers have been quoted as saying, 'I'm guaranteed to sell 1 million copies this time - as long as I write the exact same book as I wrote before.' So they often end up trapped in their own gilded cage.

Many authors did/do both (Graham Greene in days gone by, while Michael Chabon has published a Sherlock Holmes mystery) & variety's part of the fun of life.

July 8, 2007 4:40 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home